Core outcome sets (COSs) are agreed outcomes (domains (subdomains) and instruments) that should be measured as a minimum in clinical trials or practice in certain diseases or clinical fields. Worldwide, the number of COSs is increasing and there might be conceptual overlaps of domains (subdomains) and instruments within disciplines. The aim of this scoping review is to map and to classify all outcomes identified with COS projects relating to skin diseases.

We will conduct a scoping review of outcomes of skin disease-related COS initiatives to identify all concepts and their definitions. We will search PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library. The search dates will be 1 January 2010 (the point at which Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) was established) to 1 January 2024. We will also review the COMET database and C3 website to identify parts of COSs (domains and/or instruments) that are being developed and published. This review will be supplemented by querying relevant stakeholders from COS organisations, dermatology organisations and patient organisations for additional COSs that were developed. The resulting long lists of outcomes will then be mapped into conceptually similar concepts.

This study was supported by departmental research funds from the Department of Dermatology at Northwestern University. An ethics committee review was waived since this protocol was done by staff researchers with no involvement of patient care. Conflicts of interests, if any, will be addressed by replacing participants with relevant conflicts or reassigning them. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals, social media posts and promotion by COS organisations.

To quantify direct costs and healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU) associated with acute COVID-19 in adults in England.

Population-based retrospective cohort study using Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum primary care electronic medical records linked to Hospital Episode Statistics secondary care administrative data.

Patients registered to primary care practices in England.

1 706 368 adults with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR or antigen test from August 2020 to January 2022 were included; 13 105 within the hospitalised cohort indexed between August 2020 and March 2021, and 1 693 263 within the primary care cohort indexed between August 2020 and January 2022. Patients with a COVID-19-related hospitalisation within 84 days of a positive test were included in the hospitalised cohort.

Primary and secondary care HCRU and associated costs ≤4 weeks following positive COVID-19 test, stratified by age group, risk of severe COVID-19 and immunocompromised status.

Among the hospitalised cohort, average length of stay, including critical care stays, was longer in older adults. Median healthcare cost per hospitalisation was higher in those aged 75–84 (£8942) and ≥85 years (£8835) than in those aged

COVID-19-related hospitalisations in older adults, particularly critical care stays, were the primary drivers of high COVID-19 resource use in England. These findings may inform health policy decisions and resource allocation in the prevention and management of COVID-19.

Globally, around one-third of the population has at least one long-term health condition that could be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the fact that studies have revealed the direct impact of COVID-19 on healthcare provision and utilisation, the impact of the pandemic on the cost of chronic disease treatment and care from a patient perspective was scanty. So, the study aimed to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cost of chronic diseases treatment and care at public hospitals in Wallaga zones, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia, from 1 August to 31 August 2020.

An institutional-based cross-sectional study design was used, and the sample size for the study (n=642) was determined using a single population mean formula. Data were collected using interviews and analysed using SPSS V.25. Descriptive statistics were performed, and the cost of follow-up care before and after the pandemic was compared using a related-samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test, declaring the level of significance of the median cost difference at p

A total of 642 patients were included in the study, of whom 605 (94.2%) responded to the interviews. There was a significant median cost difference (n=593, Z=5.05, p=0.001) between the cost of chronic diseases among follow-up patients during the pandemic and the costs incurred by these patients before the pandemic.

The cost of follow-up care among chronic disease patients during the COVID-19 pandemic was significantly higher compared with before the pandemic era. Therefore, healthcare providers should arrange special fee waiver mechanisms for chronic disease healthcare costs during such types of pandemics and provide the services at proximal health facilities.